2009/6/26 Vitaliy Margolen wine-devel@kievinfo.com:
Ken Sharp wrote:
Because the AppDB isn't supposed to be a forum.
Who said that? It was _the_ only "official forum" long before forum.winehq.org came to be.
But now there *is* forum.winehq.org. AppDB isn't a forum (at least, not any more).
I can see no useful reason for keeping old comments
I can name several reasons:
- Apps that don't change much and old problems still exit (years later)
- Historical records of what got eventually fixed or worked around. Useful
if anyone wants to test old Wine version. Or do the same bad things. 3. Problems that still apply to lots of other applications. Or all games run under Steam. 4. Lots of new problems are well forgotten old problems. 5. Knowledge never gets old.
Points 1, 3 and 5 can be addressed by creating suitable notes, warnings and HOWTOs on the app pages. Points 2 and 4 can be addressed by correct use of bugzilla.
What are the reasons to remove old comments, other then being too slow to refresh page?
Bandwidth consumption is a real issue with running any website.
2009/6/26 John Klehm xixsimplicityxix@gmail.com:
No doubt it's a good thing to keep the appdb information up to date and clean out inactive accounts.
However it seems that if someone wants to do the work why should we have a policy to prevent them from participating according to the time their life allots? Last I checked we werent over staffed quite yet.
Especially when there isn't a maintainer at all now for this app?
http://appdb.winehq.org/objectManager.php?sClass=version&iId=1554
AppDB maintenance is a responsibility for volunteers. When the automated system is working, volunteers are given a week to respond to test data for the apps they maintain. From what Ken has said, Vitaliy (and everyone else on the Steam app) would have been removed automatically, and he was just filling in the role of the automated script.
As for deleting 300 comments on one app, sifting through 300 comments for useful/relevant information to what you're currently having trouble with is very time consuming. It is better for the average user to have a handful of useful comments to read instead. I argue that those comments could be quite old but still relevant, but in that case Ken has a point that they should be moved to notes.
2009/6/26 Vitaliy Margolen wine-devel@kievinfo.com:
I'm still asking to remove Ken Sharp from AppDB admins. This behavior is totally unacceptable. Removing user comments just because Ken doesn't like them is not a valid reason.
To be completely fair, keeping 300 old and potentially obsolete comments just because you like them is not a valid reason either.
2009/6/26 Vitaliy Margolen wine-devel@kievinfo.com:
For the last time I'm asking to provide reasons for removing comments. If you can't come up with that list and you can not be bothered to write them down, then you do not have any rights to enforce something that's known to everyone involved.
I believe he's ignoring this because he's already explained why. 300+ comments on one app can't possibly be useful to the average user who wants a quick solution to their problem.
And who are you to rate all comments as being useful/useless? AppDB is not in China or Iran. It doesn't need censoring. Being admin or maintainer doesn't mean you can censor people.
This is not about "all comments being useful/useless", nor is it about censoring. From Ken's perspective, it's about making relevant information quick and easy to get to. Without the app maintainers doing something about it, the job falls to the admins.
2009/6/26 Tom Wickline twickline@gmail.com:
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 9:13 PM, Ken Sharp kennybobs@o2.co.uk wrote:
Of course this guy agrees, he's been removed for being idle!
And when I did have the free time to submit, I had removed...
Thanks to your rm -rf if they dont agree with me script :)
Thanks for your "I know what I'm doing, who cares about the rules and guidelines for maintainers" attitude.
2009/6/26 Remco remco47@gmail.com:
I maintain two apps. I haven't updated their status in months. Yet, I'm not removed. Apparently, this is because no other people added something to these pages either.
I've got a few apps that need updated test data (some of which I've been the only reporter on), but I've also been auto-removed from apps where I just plain missed the email about other users sending test data. In some cases, I even reapplied for supermaintainership. It's not THAT hard, is it?
Maybe that [AppDB] could be governed more like a wiki
There has been talk about AppDB being more wiki-like, but it's not really suitable when the primary information is test data which is so specific it does not change (e.g. "Gold in 1.1.22 but Garbage in 1.1.23").